Republicans War on Women

Lying? Exactly what was your point in bringing Bill Maher into a discussion about Rush Limbaugh if not to defend him?

[b]I have not defended Limbaugh on this issue even once, (no matter how much you might want it to be so) so you may stop lying about it any time now (if, that is, it is even possible for you to stop lying). My point in bringing Maher into the discussion was not to defend Limbaugh, but to point out the disparity in public outrage, dependent upon whether the ox being gored resides on the left side or the right side of the barnyard.

That is what's known as introducing a "mitigating factor". They are commonly used by defense lawyers to lessen the severity of a sentence or to reduce charges..

It is most decidedly not a "mitigating factor".The only reason I would feel the need to introduce a "mitigating factor" is if I were defending the statements of either Maher or Limbaugh, which I am not.Stop lying, please.Thanks in advance!!!!

Sarah Palin said Tuesday the reaction in media and political circles that prompted Rush Limbaugh to apologize for calling a law student a “slut” was “the definition of hypocrisy.”

Quote :

I think the definition of hypocrisy is for Rush Limbaugh to have been called out, forced to apologize and retract what it is that he said in exercising his First Amendment rights and never is that the same applied to the leftist radicals who say such horrible things about the handicapped, about women, about the defenseless,”

Palin told CNN in an interview from Wasilla, Alaska.

Are you now going to claim that Politico is lying too?

happy jack

Posts : 6237

Subject: Re: Republicans War on Women 3/7/2012, 7:22 pm

Artie60438 wrote:

Are you now going to claim that Politico is lying too?

No, I'm still going to claim that you are lying.Mainly, because you are.And quite blatantly.Have you yet to figure out that it is entirely possible to not defend Limbaugh while still making note of the hyprocrisy involved between the media reactions to the statements of both Limbaugh and Maher?

Artie60438

Posts : 9561

Subject: Re: Republicans War on Women 3/7/2012, 10:37 pm

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Are you now going to claim that Politico is lying too?

[b]No, I'm still going to claim that you are lying.Mainly, because you are.And quite blatantly.Have you yet to figure out that it is entirely possible to not defend Limbaugh while still making note of the hyprocrisy involved between the media reactions to the statements of both Limbaugh and Maher?[

The only thing I can figure out is that you never get tired of making a fool of yourself. Every news report that I've seen on Palin's remarks,which btw are the same as yours,calls it the same way I see it....a blatant attempt to defend Limbaugh by playing the "he did it too" card."Little green Footballs" sums it up nicely....

SeekingArrangement.com, a company that bills itself “the world’s largest sugar daddy and sugar baby dating website,” announced its decision to start advertising on Limbaugh’s show late Tuesday, while the CEO of Ashley Madison, an online dating service website, said on CNN Wednesday morning that he is “willing to step into the void left by other advertisers.”

Ashley Madison isn't just any dating service, by the way; it's a service for people who want to cheat on their partners. Here's how Noel Biderman, the CEO of the company, explained his decision to jump on to Limbaugh's sinking ship.

“Listen, blue and red states, people cheat in both of them,” Biderman said. “Republican, democrat, men, women — everybody is prone to having an affair. So the bottom line is, my audience sits with his audience and I’m happy to advertise to them.”

Stay classy,Rush! I thought your listeners are the ones always preaching "family values". I wonder how many wingnut politicians are going to want to come on his show now that it's officially sponsored by a website for gold digging prostitutes and another one that actively promotes adultery? I say we start by asking Romney & Santorum what they think before we go on to Repub members of Congress.

KarenT

Posts : 1328

Subject: Re: Republicans War on Women 3/8/2012, 7:18 am

Sounds like Rush might be prostituting himself.

happy jack

Posts : 6237

Subject: Re: Republicans War on Women 3/8/2012, 10:39 am

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Are you now going to claim that Politico is lying too?

[b]No, I'm still going to claim that you are lying.Mainly, because you are.And quite blatantly.Have you yet to figure out that it is entirely possible to not defend Limbaugh while still making note of the hyprocrisy involved between the media reactions to the statements of both Limbaugh and Maher?[

The only thing I can figure out is that you never get tired of making a fool of yourself. Every news report that I've seen on Palin's remarks,which btw are the same as yours,calls it the same way I see it....a blatant attempt to defend Limbaugh by playing the "he did it too" card."Little green Footballs" sums it up nicely....

Ah, the trusty Boredom Card .... er, I mean, the Tail Between Your Legs Card .... has finally been played.Wassamatta? All that lying got you worn out?Considering how large of a fool you have been making of yourself in this exchange, I had expected it to be played much earlier.

edge540

Posts : 1166

Subject: Re: Republicans War on Women 3/8/2012, 11:00 am

Quote :

But that is not name-calling - that is what's known as a 'description'.I was not portraying him falsely or inaccurately, simply describing him.

Well then going by that brilliant conservative logic and reasoning when a comedian like Maher mocks a pulic figure like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachaman for their utter stupidity, that is not name calling because as you say it's not portraying them falsely or inaccurately, it's simply describing them.So why all the indignation, anger and outrage....right?

Last edited by edge540 on 3/8/2012, 12:11 pm; edited 1 time in total

happy jack

Posts : 6237

Subject: Re: Republicans War on Women 3/8/2012, 11:30 am

edge540 wrote:

quote]But that is not name-calling - that is what's known as a 'description'.I was not portraying him falsely or inaccurately, simply describing him.

Well then going by that brilliant conservative logic and reasoning when a comedian like Maher mocks a pulic figure like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachaman for their utter stupidity, that is not name calling because as you say it's not portraying them falsely or inaccurately, it's simply describing them.So why all the indignation, anger and outrage....right?[/quote]

When an alleged comedian like Bill Maher mocks a Palin or a Bachmann for what he perceives as her stupidity, I have absolutely no problem with that, and I do not consider that to be name-calling. I believe, under those circumstances, that they are fair game. However, when an alleged comedian like Bill Maher calls one or both of them a "dumb twat" or "cunt", or when 'Special Ed' Schultz refers to Laura Ingraham as a "right-wing slut", or when an alleged comedian such as David Letterman insinuates that Palin's 14 year-old daughter is having sex with a major league baseball player, then I believe that does amount to name-calling, as was also the case in the Limbaugh incident. The thing about people such as you and Artie, as opposed to me, is that I have no problem saying that Limbaugh was wrong, while you two will overlook the vitriol and fiercely defend the likes of Maher and Letterman.

I’m sorry Rush Limbaugh called 30-year-old Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a “slut.” She’s really just another professional femme-a-gogue helping to manufacture a false narrative about the GOP “war on women.” I’m sorry the civility police now have an opening to demonize the entire right based on one radio comment — because it’s the progressive left in this country that has viciously and systematically slimed female conservatives for their beliefs.We have the well-worn battle scars to prove it. And no, we don’t need coddling phone calls from the pandering president of the United States to convince us to stand up and fight.………The fact is, “slut” is one of the nicer things I’ve been called over 20 years of public life. In college during the late 1980s, it was “race traitor,” “coconut” (brown on the outside white on the inside) and “white man’s puppet.” After my first book, “Invasion,” came out in 2001, it was “immigrant-hater,” the “Radical Right’s Asian Pitbull,” “Tokyo Rose” and “Aunt Tomasina.” In my third book, 2005′s “Unhinged,” I published entire chapters of hate mail rife with degrading, unprintable sexual epithets and mockery of my Filipino heritage.If I had a dollar for every time libs have called me a “Manila whore” and “Subic Bay bar girl,” I’d be able to pay for a ticket to a Hollywood-for-Obama fundraiser. To the HuffPo left, whore is my middle name.Self-serving opponents argue that such attacks do not represent “respectable,” “mainstream” liberal opinion about their conservative female counterparts. But it was feminist godmother Gloria Steinem who called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator.” It was NOW leader Patricia Ireland who commanded her flock to only vote for “authentic” female political candidates. It was Al Gore consultant Naomi Wolf who accused the late Jeane Kirkpatrick of being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body.”It was Matt Taibbi, now of Rolling Stone magazine, who mocked my early championing of the tea party movement by jibing: “Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose.”It was Keith Olbermann, then at MSNBC and now at Al Gore’s Current TV, who wrote on Twitter that columnist S.E. Cupp was “a perfect demonstration of the necessity of the work Planned Parenthood does” and who called me a “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” He stands by those remarks. Olbermann has been a special guest at the White House.Some of us have not forgotten when liberal Wisconsin radio host John “Sly” Sylvester outrageously accused GOP Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch of performing “fellatio on all the talk-show hosts in Milwaukee” and sneered that she had “pulled a train” (a crude phrase for gang sex). (Earlier, he called former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a “black trophy” and “Aunt Jemima.”)Or when MSNBC misogynist Ed Schultz called talk show host Laura Ingraham a “talk slut” for criticizing Obama’s petty beer summit. Or when Playboy published a list of the top 10 conservative women who deserved to be “hate-fucked.” The article, which was promoted by Anne Schroeder Mullins at Politico.com, included Ingraham, “The View’s” Elisabeth Hasselbeck, former Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann and others. Yours truly topped the list with the following description: a “highly fuckable Filipina” and “a regular on Fox News, where her tight body and get-off-my-lawn stare just scream, ‘Do me!’”And then there’s the left’s war on Sarah Palin, which would require an entire national forest of trees to publish.A reporter asked Obama to comment on examples of liberal hate speech at Tuesday’s press conference. He whiffed, of course. This is, after all, the brave leader who sat on his hands while his street thugs attacked tea party mothers and grandmothers as “Koch whores” during the fight over union reform in Wisconsin. (As I reported last week, his re-election campaign is now targeting the Koch brothers’ private foundation donors in a parallel effort to chill conservative speech and activism.) He’s leading by example.So no, we won’t get any phone calls from Mr. Civility. Acknowledging the war on conservative women would obliterate The Narrative. Enjoy the silence.

Asked About “Distasteful” Language from Liberal Commentators, President Obama Says He Aims to Lead by Example

Twice at his press conference today President Obama was asked about “provocative or distasteful statements” from Democrats and liberal commentators, and twice he opted not to weigh in.In the wake of the firestorm of media coverage and criticism of conservative talk radio giant Rush Limbaugh’s crass insults of an activist from Georgetown Law School, many conservatives have argued that there is seldom, if ever, a similar outcry when liberal commentators say similarly crude things about conservative women.………The first time the president was asked about a “double standard,” he didn’t answer the question (It came as part 3 of a three-part question about Limbaugh). When CNN’s Jessica Yellin asked about Democrats referring to the Republican party’s “war on women,” the president begged off, saying, “if I start being in the business of arbitrating that the – ”“You talk about civility,” Yellin interrupted.“Right, and what I do is, I practice it,” said the president. “And so I’m going to try to lead by example in this situation, as opposed to commenting on every single comment that’s made by either politicians or pundits. I would be very busy. I would not have time to do my job. That’s your job — to comment on what’s said by politicians and pundits.”

Well, Mr. President, you certainly found the time in your busy schedule to comment on the Limbaugh issue, did you not?LSOS

edge540

Posts : 1166

Subject: Re: Republicans War on Women 3/8/2012, 3:06 pm

Quote :

"Refresh my memory - what names have I called the president?"

Quote :

"LSOS"

Oh my, I think we have a winner.mr jack, did you just call the president a "Lying Sack Of Shit"?

happy jack

Posts : 6237

Subject: Re: Republicans War on Women 3/8/2012, 3:46 pm

edge540 wrote:

Quote :

"Refresh my memory - what names have I called the president?"

Quote :

"LSOS"

Oh my, I think we have a winner.mr jack, did you just call the president a "Lying Sack Of Shit"?

Of course not.Heaven forbid.I called him ‘local shared object(s)’, because he is the president of Republicans and Democrats, blacks and whites, men and women, etc..He is our president, edge, mine and yours, so he is ‘shared’ by us all.Get it?(But sometimes, when I’m in a particularly playful mood, I refer to him as 'my little flash cookie'.)

Local shared objects (LSOs), commonly called flash cookies (due to their similarities with HTTP cookies), are pieces of data that websites which use Adobe Flash may store on a user's computer. Local shared objects are used by all versions of Adobe Flash Player and version 6 and above of Macromedia's now-obsolete Flash Player.[1]

Wow! An op-ed by none other than Michelle Malkintent. Folks,Notice that nowhere in the article does she condemn the Limbecile for his remarks other than to meekly say she's sorry he said it. Instead she just confirms what I posted yesterday...

Thanks for stepping in it again and reinforcing my proof of just how wrong you are. You never disappoint.

Scorpion

Posts : 1925

Subject: Re: Republicans War on Women 3/8/2012, 5:35 pm

happy jack wrote:

Well, Mr. President, you certainly found the time in your busy schedule to comment on the Limbaugh issue, did you not?

Actually, no. He didn't. He was answering a question during his press conference. Last week, he personally phoned Ms. Fluke to express his support, which was entirely appropriate, given the circumstances.

Unless I missed something, Barack made no other comments regarding what you call "the Limbaugh issue."

So what's your point?

happy jack

Posts : 6237

Subject: Re: Republicans War on Women 3/8/2012, 5:43 pm

Scorpion wrote:

Last week, he personally phoned Ms. Fluke to express his support, which was entirely appropriate, given the circumstances.

Just wondering why he didn't phone Laura Ingraham to express his support when she was called a slut by a radio talk show host, that's all.

Wow! An op-ed by none other than Michelle Malkintent. Folks,Notice that nowhere in the article does she condemn the Limbecile for his remarks other than to meekly say she's sorry he said it. Instead she just confirms what I posted yesterday...

Thanks for stepping in it again and reinforcing my proof of just how wrong you are. You never disappoint.

Just what in the hell does what Michelle Malkin says or doesn't say have to do with what I say or do not say?Absolutely nothing.So, continue to lie, if you wish, by continuing to assert that I have defended Limbaugh in any way, shape, or form.Lying suits you quite well, as it tends to fill your intellectual (snicker) void when logic utterly fails.

Scorpion

Posts : 1925

Subject: Re: Republicans War on Women 3/8/2012, 5:55 pm

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Last week, he personally phoned Ms. Fluke to express his support, which was entirely appropriate, given the circumstances.

Just wondering why he didn't phone Laura Ingraham to express his support when she was called a slut by a radio talk show host, that's all.

Yeah. Well IIRC, Schultz was suspended for a week for his comments, and he flat out apologized to Ingraham on his show.

In any case, Ms. Fluke was personally attacked for her testimony before Congress. That's quite different from one radio host insulting another, don't you think?

happy jack

Posts : 6237

Subject: Re: Republicans War on Women 3/8/2012, 6:11 pm

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well IIRC, Schultz was suspended for a week for his comments, and he flat out apologized to Ingraham on his show.

Limbaugh apologized too. What's your point?

Scorpion wrote:

In any case, Ms. Fluke was personally attacked for her testimony before Congress. That's quite different from one radio host insulting another, don't you think?

Why is it "quite different"?And why is it the business of the president?

Scorpion

Posts : 1925

Subject: Re: Republicans War on Women 3/8/2012, 6:39 pm

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well IIRC, Schultz was suspended for a week for his comments, and he flat out apologized to Ingraham on his show.

Limbaugh apologized too. What's your point?

Yeah... After he blasted Fluke for 3 days, he apologized for his "choice of words." IMHO, he really should have been suspended for his comments, but that's up to the station.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

In any case, Ms. Fluke was personally attacked for her testimony before Congress. That's quite different from one radio host insulting another, don't you think?

Why is it "quite different"?And why is it the business of the president?

When any private citizen gives testimony to Congress, she should be able to express her views without undergoing personal character assassination. It really looks like Limbaugh was attempting to intimidate anybody else (that he disagrees with) who might be thinking of testifying before Congress in the future.

The phone call from Barack was simply a nice gesture to Fluke after she was attacked. I'm sure that it meant a lot to her. Are you saying that he shouldn't have called her?

Artie60438

Posts : 9561

Subject: Re: Republicans War on Women 3/8/2012, 9:01 pm

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Last week, he personally phoned Ms. Fluke to express his support, which was entirely appropriate, given the circumstances.

[b]Just wondering why he didn't phone Laura Ingraham to express his support when she was called a slut by a radio talk show host, that's all.

You're kidding,right? Never mind. Knowing the way your thought process works you probably aren't Laura Ingraham: Right wing hate radio bomb thrower and frequent attack dog on Fox NewsvsSandra Fluke: Law student,private citizen,whose only crime was that she wanted to share her views with Congress on the importance of women's access to contraception.

happy jack

Posts : 6237

Subject: Re: Republicans War on Women 3/8/2012, 9:18 pm

Scorpion wrote:

When any private citizen gives testimony to Congress, she should be able to express her views without undergoing personal character assassination.

She sure should be able to express her views without undergoing personal character assassination, and I’ve said from the beginning that Limbaugh was wrong (unless you believe Artie, who has put his hands over his ears and sung lalalalalalaimnotlisteninglalalalalalathroughout this entire exchange). But should she give testimony on a controversial issue, she had damn well better be prepared to thicken her skin. This is, after all, the real world, not Mister Rogers Neighborhood, and that’s the way things work in the real world, whether you like it or not.

Scorpion wrote:

The phone call from Barack was simply a nice gesture to Fluke after she was attacked. I'm sure that it meant a lot to her. Are you saying that he shouldn't have called her?

I thought it was very nice that he called her. I just wonder why he would insert himself into something that was absolutely none of his business, much in the the same way he embarrassed himself by butting into the business of the local police when he stepped into the situation that led to the famed "Beer Summit'. And I also wonder why he doesn’t call to console every woman who is publicly called a slut for speaking her mind.Don’t you?

happy jack

Posts : 6237

Subject: Re: Republicans War on Women 3/8/2012, 9:29 pm

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Last week, he personally phoned Ms. Fluke to express his support, which was entirely appropriate, given the circumstances.

[b]Just wondering why he didn't phone Laura Ingraham to express his support when she was called a slut by a radio talk show host, that's all.

You're kidding,right? Never mind. Knowing the way your thought process works you probably aren't Laura Ingraham: Right wing hate radio bomb thrower and frequent attack dog on Fox NewsvsSandra Fluke: Law student,private citizen,whose only crime was that she wanted to share her views with Congress on the importance of women's access to contraception.

So, because of her views, you are OK with Laura Ingraham being called a slut by a talk radio host, I take it.That's very interesting.

Heretic

Posts : 3133

Subject: Re: Republicans War on Women 3/8/2012, 11:47 pm

happy jack wrote:

...she had damn well better be prepared to thicken her skin

Huh? How so? I've not heard that any of the backlash against Rush actually being organized by her. Fluke's being doing the usual PR circuit, as anyone would after such a highly publicized incident, but it's been more information on the topic of birth control and what she actually said during her testimony (which is getting completely lost in the discussion), with of course a little "Seriously, did you hear that guy? It was a little nuts." rather than "My precious and fragile female feelings are hurt. I can't go on..." i thought she seemed remarkably unphased by the whole thing. How should she have reacted?

happy jack wrote:

Don’t you?

No. It was a remarkably uncomplicated PR move.

Scorpion

Posts : 1925

Subject: Re: Republicans War on Women 3/9/2012, 2:13 pm

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

When any private citizen gives testimony to Congress, she should be able to express her views without undergoing personal character assassination.

She sure should be able to express her views without undergoing personal character assassination, and I’ve said from the beginning that Limbaugh was wrong (unless you believe Artie, who has put his hands over his ears and sung lalalalalalaimnotlisteninglalalalalala throughout this entire exchange). But should she give testimony on a controversial issue, she had damn well better be prepared to thicken her skin.

Sure. But Limbaugh's 3 day rant was way beyond the pale. I'm sure that Fluke can take criticism, but no private citizen should have to endure the repeated airing of vile cheap shots to 15 million listeners.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

The phone call from Barack was simply a nice gesture to Fluke after she was attacked. I'm sure that it meant a lot to her. Are you saying that he shouldn't have called her?

I thought it was very nice that he called her. I just wonder why he would insert himself into something that was absolutely none of his business, much in the the same way he embarrassed himself by butting into the business of the local police when he stepped into the situation that led to the famed "Beer Summit'.

First of all, I see no parallel at all with comments that led to the "beer summit." Barack probably regretted those comments. But as I said, calling Fluke was entirely appropriate, under the circumstances. Again, Limbaugh blasted her for 3 days. It's not like Limbaugh simply "misspoke" or got "carried away." It was more than an insult. It was deliberate character assassination.

Maher: Palin’s Job at Fox Equivalent to Talking to Her Down Syndrome Baby

By Rusty Weiss | February 18, 2010 | 00:01

How does one prepare for an upcoming appearance by Seth MacFarlane of Family Guy fame? If you're Bill Maher, you follow up the Family Guy/Sarah Palin/Down Syndrome attack by doing an 'exclusive rant' for the Huffington Post which includes - you guessed it - a joke about Sarah Palin's son, Trig. Maher appeals to his lower-intellect audience by stating:"...while we were off, Sarah Palin agreed to do commentary at Fox News. Which is actually very similar to her day job - talking to a baby with Down Syndrome."

Hey, Bill:

Whassup, mah main?ROTFLMAO!!!! Saw your comment while me and the Missus were having dinner – damn near had arugula come through my nose.Your mouth may be an open sewer, but as long as you have an open wallet, say whatever the f*ck you want. Oh, and keep the green stuff coming.